Commonwealth v. Hutchison
164 A.3d 494
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Franklyn Palmer Hutchison IV lived with Brianne Miles, who died of a drug overdose on July 7–8, 2015; Hutchison discovered her body on July 8 but waited two days to notify police.
- When police arrived, Hutchison initially told them he discovered the body that morning; officers found drug paraphernalia in the apartment.
- Hutchison was charged with abuse of a corpse (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5510), filing a false police report, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Hutchison moved in limine to exclude color photographs of the decomposing corpse; the trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted him on all counts.
- Hutchison appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for abuse of a corpse based on mere inaction, (2) improper prosecutor rhetoric in opening, (3) erroneous admission of inflammatory photographs, and (4) inadequate explanation for consecutive maximum sentences.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient under Commonwealth v. Smith, rejected the prosecutorial and photographic challenges, and held the sentencing claim was waived for lack of preservation.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's/Trial Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for abuse of a corpse | Mere failure to report death (inaction) cannot support §5510 unless a fiduciary relationship existed | Smith allows conviction where a person knowingly leaves a corpse to rot/does not arrange burial; concealment or letting the body decompose supports §5510 | Evidence sufficient: failure to notify and letting corpse decompose convicted Hutchison under §5510 |
| Prosecutor’s opening statement | Invited jurors to imagine themselves as the victim’s family, inflaming sympathy | Statement asked jurors to imagine the family’s grief as a factual demonstration of the element (outrage to family sensibilities) | No abuse of discretion; opening statement was a fair, reasonable preview of evidence |
| Admission of color photographs of the corpse | Photos were unduly inflammatory and cumulative of witness testimony | Photos were wide-angle/not grotesque, relevant to proving decomposition and the §5510 element; testimony does not render photos inadmissible | No abuse of discretion; photos admissible and not overly inflammatory |
| Sentencing — failure to state reasons for consecutive maximum terms | Court failed to explain why consecutive statutory maximums were imposed | Appellant failed to preserve discretionary-sentencing claim (no post-sentence motion or proper objection at sentencing) | Claim waived; even if preserved, court provided adequate rationale and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 567 A.2d 1070 (Pa. Super. 1989) (statute covers leaving a corpse to rot and failing to arrange burial)
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (two-step test for admitting potentially inflammatory victim photographs)
- Commonwealth v. Spell, 28 A.3d 1274 (Pa. 2011) (color photographs not per se inflammatory where wide-angle and relevant)
- Commonwealth v. Cherry, 378 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1977) (prosecutor may not invite jury to imagine themselves as victims)
- Commonwealth v. Legares, 709 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. 1998) (graphic, close-up photographs of skull wounds may be unduly inflammatory)